HD Install faster than frugal--?
Forum: HD Install
Topic: HD Install faster than frugal--?
started by: Subito Piano
Posted by Subito Piano on July 19 2008,23:08Hi! I have to reinstall (loooong story) but i have been advised to do a frugal install for ease of upgrading. I'm not sure i am worried about upgrading--with only 48 MB RAM, i want the lowest resource consumption and fastest speed. So--isn't a full HD install more efficient (faster) than a frugal install?
Posted by Juanito on July 20 2008,06:22I think the answer is that it depends on your hardware so you might need to try both kinds of install and see...
As regards upgrading, several upgrades to dsl have resulted in less resource comsumption and so could be a good thing.
Posted by curaga on July 20 2008,07:10Usually yes, a hd install takes less ram and runs faster. Because there's no initrd in ram (~2mb), and because the files are not compressed and so writable (no unionfs or decompression overhead)
Posted by Subito Piano on July 20 2008,13:15OK! Thank you both.